MindNet is no longer active.
MindNet Journal - Vol. 1, No. 41
V E R I C O M M / MindNet "Quid veritas est?"
The following is reproduced here with the express permission of
Permission is given to reproduce and redistribute, for
non-commercial purposes only, provided this information and the
copy remain intact and unedited.
The views and opinions expressed below are not necessarily the
views and opinions of VERICOMM, MindNet, or the editors unless
Editor: Mike Coyle
Contributing Editors: Walter Bowart
Assistant Editor: Rick Lawler
Research: Darrell Bross
The following is an excerpt from the book length expansion
of _The Controllers_, by Martin Cannon, concerning _The
Revolution in Military Affairs_, which was referred to by
Julianne McKinney in MindNet Journal, Vol. 1, No. 40.
By Martin Cannon
The Revolution in Military Affairs.
The hard fact is: We are all potential targets. Would-be
tyrants need only bide their time until the necessary technology
is perfected and activated.
Such is the lesson drawn from a startling 1994 document
which outlines the ultimate purpose of non-lethal technology and
mind control weaponry. "The Revolution in Military Affairs and
Conflict Short of War" is a key paper prepared by the Strategic
Studies Institute at the U.S. Army War College. The authors are
Dr. Steven Metz, an associate research professor who
specializes in "military operations other than war," and LTC
James Kievit, a Strategic Research Analyst.
Before we examine their findings, some background: The
Revolution in Military Affairs has recently become the new
vogue topic among Pentagon insiders. The "RMA" (as war-wonks
abbreviate it) is largely the brainchild of septuagenarian
Pentagon strategist Andrew Marshall and his deputy, Lt. Col
Andrew Krepinevich. General John M. Shalikashvili, chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has embraced their ideas, while
Pentagon insiders are thrashing out the details at high-level
roundtables open only to the National Security elite.
The revolution they are planning could change the way all
Americans live--and it will be televised.
Metz and Kievit outline three basic goals: 1. The United
States government will control the planet. 2. The military
will control the government. 3. Computer nerds will control
the military. The result, in a word, will be technofascism.
How to bring all this about? Through the emergent
disciplines of ultra-high-tech warfare: Non-lethal weaponry,
bio-warfare, mind control, unmanned flying vehicles of unusual
new designs, and new psy-war scenarios designed to alter mass
belief systems. With toys like these, Pentagon planners hope to
subjugate you so stealthily you won't even know you've been
conquered. In fact, they predict you'll welcome these new
developments, even though the Pentagon plans to complement
their revamped military with a revamped political structure.
In the cyber-commando view of the-way-things-ought-to-be, no
ethical, moral, or Constitutional restraints should constrict
the rulers of post-RMA America. "National Security" will be the
single constant; all else is mutable.
Authors Metz and Kievit sketch a grim portrait of global
events in the near future. U.S. policy in the post-Cold War era
will doom nearly all Third World states to fragmentation, ruin
and strife; "ungovernability and instability will be the norm."
The American government's primary concern will be protecting U.S.
businessmen overseas. Therefore, every citizen leaving the United
States will receive an electronic Individual Position Locator
Device (IPLD), which will probably be permanently implanted
sub-dermally. These implants would not only function as tracking
devices: Metz and Kievit believe that IPLDs could provide
identification and "two-way communication" between the military
The authors fully understand that the public might resist
these implants: "If a locator device could be remotely activated,
how could Americans be sure that activation was only effective
outside the United States?" Even more disconcertingly, Metz and
Kievit concede that IPLDs could "monitor personal
conversations." Arguably, the next step might well be domestic
mass implantation, probably as a crime prevention measure.
These implants will be used in conjunction with another
rapidly emerging technology: Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, or UAVs.
(This term replaces the familiar "Remotely Piloted Vehicles"
[RPV].) High Altitude Long Endurance (HALE) UAVs will communicate
with IPLDs implanted in Americans. UAVs would also see usage as
spy-craft, a purpose they serve at present. But perhaps Metz
and Kievit's most mysterious--and intriguing--suggestion
concerns the use of these unusual new aerial devices in
support of U.S.-backed foreign insurgencies: "UAVs can be used
for psychological operations aimed at mobilizing support and
enhancing the legitimacy of the insurgents."
Ufologists--at least those with an ability to read between
the lines--might find that last sentence particularly noteworthy.
The authors also foresee the Army developing "the aerial
capability to broadcast and alter television signals." All
in the name of anti-terrorism, of course. The basic idea is
deviously clever: The military could send fake broadcasts, using
computer-generated imagery to present real individuals in
simulated situations. The same technology which allowed Forrest
Gump to shake hands with JFK can also create the spectacle of an
"enemy" leader striking a woman, masturbating in public, or
otherwise discrediting himself. The authors concede that this
approach has a downside, should such an operation be "blown"
(i.e., revealed to the public). The masses might lose their faith
in the televised image, thereby "reducing the impact of one of
the American politician's greatest communication tools."
We have already discussed EMP weapons, such as HERF guns,
which can destroy the electronic systems of enemy jets. Metz and
Kievit also recommend using soft-kill weapons against aircraft
flown by drug importers. Or rather: "suspected narcotraffickers"
(emphasis mine). Of course, should suspicions prove incorrect,
people inside the aircraft will be no less dead. Fortunately,
directed-energy weapons have the advantage of plausible
deniability. The authors make one point quite explicit:
"...deniability must be aimed at the American people, who do not
sanction the imprisonment, much less execution, of individuals
without a trial."
Since, according to RMA planners, the United States will
prove vulnerable to attack by foreign terrorists with domestic
allies, Metz and Kievit insist on targeting "immigrant or
resident alien communities" which might provide support for
terrorism. One snag: American public opinion might stifle use of
certain biotechnical weapons already in the works. "Most
Americans would not support the use of a weapon designed to
target only a specific racial or ethnic group... Could the
government and the military of this multi-ethnic republic face
charges that it was developing or using a weapon targeting
Africans, Jews, Koreans, Hispanics, etc.?"
At this point, the Pentagon planners confront the one true
obstacle to their revolution: "American values and opinion."
The RMA is a beast that must wear no leash if it is to protect
us. If traditional ethics stand in the way of the Pentagon's
plans, we must change the ethics, not the plans. Overcoming
these constraints to make a RMA in conflict short of war would
require fundamental changes in the United States--an ethical
and political revolution may be necessary to make a military
Metz and Kievit foresee an overhaul of the entire
political infrastructure of the United States. The military,
the intelligence community, and domestic law enforcement (both
federal and local) should congeal into a single unit--a
national security monolith. This monolith will further
integrate itself with corporations and the courts by
means of a "national information policy." Even public health
should be treated as a national security issue. Interestingly,
Metz and Kievit ask whether the RMA can occur "in some different
type of political system not based on nation-states and
traditional inter-state war." There's more than one way to make
Revolutionary change in our approach to conflict short of
war may come about indirectly as we grapple with domestic
problems such as crime and drugs. If our traditional notions of
privacy and public security are altered to fight these battles,
it is an easy step to change our attitudes toward intervention
in the affairs and psyches of foreign foes.
And now we get to the nitty gritty: "Behavior modification
is a key component of peace enforcement." "Information warfare
systems might influence the behavior of populations..."
"Proposed information warfare capabilities might be ideally
suited for helping develop desired emotions, attitudes, or
Conflict short of war "is most often won or lost through
the manipulation of images, beliefs, attitudes, and
perceptions." Here are two other key quotes-not yanked out of
This makes psychological technology [italics in original]
much more important than strike technology. Ways must be found
to use emerging technology...to help military strategists
develop, implement, and continually improve methods of
influencing opinion, mobilizing public support, and sometimes
Today, two RMAs may be underway simultaneously. The first
(and more mature) is electronic... The second (and potentially
more profound) RMA is biotechnological, including genetic
engineering and advanced behavior-altering drugs. Because of the
compression of time and the shortening of historical patterns,
the biotechnical revolution is totally enmeshed with the
electronic. It may ultimately be the combination of the two that
proves truly revolutionary.
This is hardly the sort of revolution Washington or Jefferson
would have recognized or endorsed.
Metz and Kievit predict that troops sent to the
Third World will be exposed to strange, resilient new diseases;
by law, returning soldiers will face long-term quarantine.
Corrupt leaders of "friendly" third world countries will prove
unable to stand up to either narcotraffickers or "spiritual
insurgents." In short: traditional methods of projecting American
might may no longer suffice.
Thus, the military will embark on a course of "Dynamic
Defense"--a plan designed to abolish the Department of Defense,
the Department of State, the CIA, the NSC, and all other arms of
the intelligence community. Instead, there will be just two
organizations--one devoted to preventing conflict, the other
devoted to containing it. The division between the military and
traditional law enforcement will vanish.
To create the appropriate "attitudinal vessel" for RMA, the
Dynamic Defenders will use high-tech means of "consciousness
raising" in order to undo the citizenry's "old fashioned notions
of personal privacy and national sovereignty." Also to be
eliminated: "Old-fashioned ideas about information control and
scientific inquiry." Preserving American technological advantage
will be far more important than quaint notions of free
information exchange. Computer hackers will be enemies.
The doctrine of national security will dictate U.S.
responses to ecological threats (even those within other nations)
and "psychological threats." There should be "no
distinction-legal or otherwise" drawn between problems within and
outside our borders. The United States should regard its allies
(Britain, France, Australia, etc.) as little more than
"encumbrances." Indeed, the American military will preemptively
disable any potential opponent with the ability to disrupt the
U.S. in any way.
Metz and Kievit predict that the Dynamic Defenders may
metamorphose into "the Eagle Movement," in which the military
finally escapes the constitutional restrictions placing the
armed forces under civilian control. The traditional parties
will be "to put it lightly, intimidated by the Eagle Movement,"
and will succumb to its demands.
It's a scenario that should appeal to anyone who rooted
for Darth Vader during Star Wars. Fortunately, other published
RMA theorists haven't proven quite so "visionary" as the
world-devouring Metz and Kievit. We can only hope the Joint
Chiefs opt for a revolution that is much more cautious--and
less disdainful of democracy.
A Few Modest Questions About the RMA.
1. According to the Metz/Kievit scenario, the RMA process
culminates in the military openly assuming a dominant role in
politics. What is to stop the militarists from "kick-starting"
the process? How do we know they won't clandestinely aid and
abet the terrorism, insurgencies, drug trafficking and other
problems used to rationalize the revolution?
2. As the national security monolith grows in scope and power,
what will prevent the use of "non-lethal" weapons--such as
sedative-laden food supplies and televised subliminals--against
the domestic population?
3. Who determines what constitutes a "psychological threat"?
Which ideas or beliefs shall be damned as threatening?
4. Metz and Kievit make repeated reference to unusual new
diseases which will afflict foreign populations. These diseases
will lead to greater restrictions on immigration and travel:
Anyone setting foot in certain nations would have to undergo a
period of quarantine before mingling with the U.S. populace.
Foreigners--even foreign tourists--might be denied entrance
altogether. The political impact of such restrictions would be
enormous: Americans would have minimal exposure to individuals
from Third World countries, and thus minimal access to
first-person accounts of conditions elsewhere.
But where will these new diseases come from? How can Metz
and Kievit predict their appearance so confidently? Do these
mysterious diseases have anything to do with those
much-trumpeted developments in biotechnology?
5. Metz and Kievit assert that "UAVs can be used for
psychological operations aimed at mobilizing support and
enhancing the legitimacy" of Third World combatants favored by
Washington. Just what do they mean by this? Obviously, a gray
piece of military hardware, bearing stars-and-stripes
identification markings, won't have much of a psychological
impact as it buzzes over the head of a favored rebel leader.
Perhaps these flying devices will come disguised or
misrepresented in some way?
In all likelihood, these vehicles will be camouflaged and
misidentified-and the question "Misidentified as what?" won't
detain any thinking person for very long. Ufologists should be
very concerned about the clandestine use of UAVs in
6. Re: "The Eagle Movement." Is the eagle American? Or is this
the same bird that once perched above the swastika?
MindNet Journal Archive Filename: [mn141.txt]
To receive the MindNet Journal via email:
Send message: [subscribe mindnet] to: .
Send message: [unsubscribe mindnet] to: .
Back issues of the MindNet Journal are available at our
FTP Archive site:
MindNet Journal Publication Index: [mnindex.txt]
Submission of articles for publication within the MindNet
Journal on the subjects of mind control, directed-energy
weapons, non-lethal weapons, ritual abuse, UFO abductions,
bioelectromagnetics, hypnosis, and other related topics
will be accepted with the author's statement of permission
to publish. The editor reserves the right to accept or
reject for publication. Send articles for submission to:
, or VERICOMM BBS 510.891.0303, or VERICOMM,
POB 32314, Oakland, CA 94604-2314 USA.
The MindNet mailing list is owned and maintained by Mike Coyle,
, VERICOMM / MindNet, POB 32314 Oakland, CA
The MindNet Journal is published by VERICOMM / MindNet in
cooperation with the Freedom Of Thought Foundation, POB 35072,
Tucson, AZ 85740-5072 USA.
VERICOMM / MindNet and its agents disavow any and all
responsibility or liability for any and all claims and/or
guarantees, express or implied, and delivery of products,
merchandise, and/or services offered for sale by
advertisers and/or authors within the MindNet Journal.
|||| |||| | | | | | | | | | ||||
||||| || || ||||| ||| | | ||||| || | | | | | | ||||
|||||| ||| ,,,,| || | ||||| || | ||| | ||| ||||
||||||| |||| | ||| | | | | ||| | ||| sm||
|||||||||||| VERICOMM / MindNet : MindNet@c2.org |||||||||||||